Does Ken Cuccinelli go down on his wife?

Republican hypocrisy on sex is so tiring. I’d written yesterday about Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, and his ongoing effort to make it a felony for adults, straight and gay, married and single, to give or receive oral sex in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Today we’re asking: If Ken Cuccinelli is so hot on banning sodomy between consenting adults – and remember kids, sodomy includes anal and oral sex, straight and gay, giving and receiving – then it’s long past time for someone ask Mr. Cuccinelli if he’s ever gone down on his wife.

Yes, when the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that states could no longer ban sodomy between consenting adults in the privacy of their own bedroom, GOP Justice Scalia bemoaned the fact that this might mean the end of state bans on masturbation.

Here’s Scalia:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

How does Republican rising star Cuccinelli feel about masturbation? Pro or con? Does it depend on the style?

This isn’t a “cute” gotcha point. GOPer Cuccinelli wants to make it a felony for all adults, straight and gay, married and single, to perform or receive oral and anal sex. And we’re to believe that Ken Cuccinelli has never received a BJ? Really? And that’s he’s never gone down on a woman? Really? If he has, it’s a felony (in the Virginia law the Supreme Court struck down, but Mr. Cuccinelli wants to resurrect – so morally, in his book, it’s a felony).

Has Ken Cuccinelli ever participated in this felony? Will Ken Cuccinelli vow never to feloniously fellate again?

Inquiring heart and minds, and mouths and loins, want to know.

Is it just me, or does Lawrence O’Donnell look like he’s about to commit a felony?

I’m taken back to a few years ago – 2006 in fact – when we sic’d our readers on members of Congress who were the biggest “defenders of traditional marriage” to make sure they were defending their marriage against sodomy, since traditional marriages don’t commit the felony of sodomy.

George Allen

Good morning, Senator Allen’s office
Yes I’m calling to see if the senator supports traditional marriage.
Yes he does, he supports the bill.
Okay, and he’s divorced?
Uh (uncomfortably) yes sir.
Yes, okay,
(she quickly adds) But he’s remarried.
What was the cause of his divorce? Do you know the reason? Is his wife remarried?
I don’t know, it was a long time ago sir.
Okay, could you tell me if the senator masturbates?
I’m sorry, I can’t answer these questions.
Can you tell me, do you masturbate?
(click)

Mike Crapo

Is Senator Crapo in favor of traditional marriage?
Yes he is, he’s a cosponsor of the bill.
He is? Can you tell me if he masturbates?
I could not tell you that.
Can you tell me, do you masturbate?
I cannot tell you that either.
Can you tell me, does he commit sodomy, analingus, cunnilingus or fellatio?
What is the purpose of this questioning?
It’s regarding his views on traditional marriage.
Okay, he supports the bill.
Yes, but could you tell me does he commit sodomy?
I could not give you an answer on that.
Is he willing to pledge that he has not or will not commit sodomy?
I could not answer that.
Has he ever had sex before or outside of marriage?
Again, sir, what is the point of this questioning?
It’s regarding traditional marriage and how far his support goes.
Any one of those questions I could not answer.
Have you ever had sex outside of marriage?
Again, I will not answer that.
It’s nobody’s business, right?
That’s right.
Okay, thank you.

“So when the Republican candidate for governor finds himself in a campaign debate, is it not reasonable to ask him if he has violated that law that he supports?”

And Lawrence O’Donnell makes an especially important point in the video: Cuccinelli opposed changing the sodomy law to exempt consenting adults in their privacy of their own bedroom. So he made this an issue. Let him answer the question.

And in order to cleanse the palate after all this talk of Ken Cuccinelli performing cunnilingus on, and/or receiving fellatio from, his wife, here’s a puppy because cute:

John AravosisFollow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. John's article archive.

This seems to be the same pattern that a lot of Islamic countries follow; as long as the morality police don’t see it, you can do anything. If it’s of any condolence these people don’t even believe this stuff, it’s all about control and corruption. Breaks down to if I can bribe, extort and make money off of people. Not actually about the morals part. Bottom line, they’re crooks looking to make an extra buck.

if i stop what i in my best assessment seems to be an act of prostitution, immorality, lack of code and honor, and damaging to the community…absolutely!!!!! yes! correct! no felatio and no cuninlingus! but i am still not taking them to jail unless I can get a higher charge… so if I can slap a felony on… then that builds the case… and the law can attempt to reform these people (good luck with that by the way). (on initial stop i should add only a police interview to verify this by knowledgeable officer can determine this by law)…so bottom line on this…jails are overcrowded…lower crimes are getting off easy…incarceration reform is in shambles!

however,

If I see what seems to be a normal, law abiding, conservative human being of any gender or race engaged in felatio or cunnninglingus they go home! (police interview to verify this by knowledgeable officer! NCIC DCI check on CPU and interview!)

why?

chances are there is an open container, controlled substance, or wrap sheet on the first case and not on the second example! hello! let’s keep it together!

Oh, boy, I remember the good old days. If you ran out of gas on a Sunday, you’re S.O.L. until Monday (here in Virginia).

Nothing was open except for grocery stores and churches, and TV programming succckked! Nothing but Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jim and Tammy Bakker. And VCRs didn’t exist, so it’s not like you could watch anything else.

Why not introduce other measures to protect the public morality while he’s at it? Closing all grocery stores on Sundays, prohibiting the use of blasphemous language in public, nailing up a copy of the Ten Commandments in every park–these are all laws (natural laws of course) that demand promulgation. Do it for the children!

The question is not whether he goes down on his wife. His problem more than likely stems from the fact that she doesn’t go down on him. And if he doesn’t experience it, then he wants no one else to either.

I think the problem is that I was originally only addressing your comment about the age of consent being 15. I thought you were talking about the age of consent for sexual intercourse, which is 18 in Virginia. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I just wanted to add that the actual age of consent for marriage in Virginia, with parental consent, is 16, although there are exceptions for pregnancy.

Becca, I thought I addressed your point above when I said that yes, I believe that the exsiting laws on the books in Virginia could be read to make consenting ‘sodomy’ between married couples under the age of 18 illegal. I think that’s the way Ken Cuccinelli sees it. Unless you go with the assumption that marriage automatically confers emancipation, making both spouses legal adults and therefore protected by Lawrence v. Texas.

However, those Virginia laws are still on the books. Prior to Lawrence, it actually was against the law for even married couples to engage in ‘sodomy’ in The State For Lovers.

The Virginia statutes need to be rewritten but they don’t need to be rewritten the way Cuccinelli wants them rewritten.

The amount of time these people spend working themselves into a righteous froth (some kind of froth, anyway) over what other people are doing with their naughty bits is pathological.

I can’t fathom what it must be like to have one’s worldview informed by the kind of narcissism that makes you believe you know what’s best for EVERYONE IN THE WORLD.

I mean, seriously? What kind of mind thinks, “I feel a certain way about a certain thing that MOST OTHER PEOPLE disagree with. It is imperative that my personal views be codified and imposed on EVERYONE EVERYWHERE for the good of all humanity.”

That’s just … sick. Literally sick. Perhaps he believes he is doing god’s work? Because the all-powerful holy creator of the entire universe needs you to be his glorious avatar and stand firm against the filthy, sinful, unclean masses.

Which is just more deluded narcissism, the hallmark of the entire Republican party.

What do they believe, after all? The human body should be subject to the most stringent regulation — no gaying it up, no sex outside the marriage bed and in the missionary position for the purposes of being fruitful and multiplying; and if you could go ahead and sign over the deed and title to your uterus, that’d be just awesome. You know in your hearts that if they could find some way to outlaw the female orgasm (which good Republican women only conceive of in scandalous theory, anyway) they would.

At the same time that they are fighting for more and more regulation of the human body (other people’s anyway), they tell us that corporations — which they apparently believe to be people, oddly — should be free from cumbersome regulation. Because corporations are the only “people” who can be trusted to behave in a just and moral manner without being subject to a bunch of tedious, restrictive rules.

Actually I wasn’t talking about marriage at all. I was simply addressing your comment: “It is statutory rape for an adult to have sexual relations with anyone under the age of 15, which is Virginia’s legal age of consent.” I guess I missed your point entirely but just wanted to clarify that “the age of consent in Virginia is 18.” I thought you were talking about the age of consent for sexual relations, not marriage. Sorry.

Not quite. The ‘age of consent’ to which I was referring was the legal age at which a young person can consent to marry, which in Virginia is 15.

Furthermore, the VA code as it reads carves out a specific exception for a married couple where one or both members are under 18.

(Weirdly enough, it also carves out exceptions for children and grandchildren…but in this case, not being a lawyer myself, I’m assuming it’s because they want to ensure that incest remains a felony under other statutes and isn’t left as a misdemeanor).

If you’re suggesting an under 18 married couple can be convicted of felony sodomy, whereas if they’re 18 or older, it’s not applicable, that makes no legal sense.

The age of consent in Virginia is 18. There is an exception which allows teenagers 15, 16 and 17 to engage in sexual relations but only with a partner younger than 18. (P.S. — I see you have fixed that comment in your post.)

The problem in Virginia is that they describe sexual relations as ‘fornication’. Anything other than penile-vaginal penetration is described as ‘sodomy’.

“Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.”

“Crimes against nature” states in part; “If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of … felony…”

Clearly their “crimes against nature” statute was invalidated by Lawrence v. Texas. Actually, it’s absurd to think that any state in this country would still have laws on the books criminalizing sexual relations between consenting adults but Virginia still does.

Let’s be clear here: Even though at times Cuccinelli has cited Virginia’s anti-sodomy law as being necessary and the only bulwark to protect children from sexual predator, he’s lying. It is statutory rape for an adult to have sexual relations with anyone under the age of 15, which is Virginia’s legal age of consent. A felony, and a sexual offender one at that.

Above the age of 15, it’s the misdemeanor “contributing to the delinquency of a minor.” One likely reason for this, of course, is so that if a 19 year old marries a 17 year old — legal in Virginia — it is not automatically a felony.

If Cooch has a problem with this, then he needs to get that age of consent changed. And as I remarked yesterday, 15 years old is creepy-low.

However, when he was pressed on why he opposed the Virginia state bill in 2004 which would’ve fixed the state anti-sodomy law overturned by Lawrence v. Texas, he invariably stated it was because he felt it was immoral and unnatural to be a gay person. Or rather, he couched it in the usual bigot meme, that he didn’t object to gays as people, he just wanted to make gay sex illegal because he thinks it’s icky.

What campaign idiot came up with an idea that could be mocked as “GOP Candidate Opposes, Criminalizes BJs”?

Yeah, the Cooch is supposed to be seen as the protector of little kids from sexual predators, and the Macker as, I guess, the guy who wants to procure little kids for those predators. Or something. I don’t know.

But all you’re seeing today is people mocking the Republican who wants to criminalize most heterosexual Americans (not to mention all gays and lesbians). Lawrence? Who’s Lawrence?

I’ve seen enough “smug Canadian” comments but this seems a very CONSERVATIVE idea. Other than Talibangelicals, who would want “the State” to break into your home to arrest you for doing something that is not violent, consensual and affects no one else? They truly are descendants of Puritans who wanted to make sure that no one else had any joy in their lives. (I assume The Cooch only wants to prosecute those icky gay people.)

I know you don’t care, but in answer to some of the questions posed to “traditional marriage” conservatives, Yes! I’ve seen John’s comment below and would characterize this as a Canadian value not isolated to Quebec!

I’m guessing that any sexual congress between Mr. and Mrs. Cooch is ancient history. He’s probably trying to put a damper on the extracurricular activities between her and Brad, her 26-year-old tennis coach

Well, if he and his wife have never had oral sex with each other, they must have the most boring sex lives on the planet.
They probably only use the missionary position, too. And only in their bedroom. With the lights out. And their pj’s mostly on.